ArticleBJPsych open2026
Language-Related Differences in Prenatal Depression Screening Uptake in the USA Midwest, 2019-2024.
Article in BJPsych open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Language-Related Differences in Prenatal Depression Screening Uptake in the USA Midwest, 2019-2024.BJPsych open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prenatal depression is a substantial contributor to maternal morbidity, and screening is an entry point to psychiatric assessment and treatment during pregnancy. Following updated guidelines and quality metrics for prenatal depression screening, we evaluated whether screening uptake differed by preferred language within a large USA healthcare system. We used electronic health record data to identify a retrospective cohort of deliveries at or beyond 20 weeks gestation in 2019-2024. We used logistic regression with a language×year interaction to estimate the adjusted marginal probabilities of screening by language preference. Among 92 063 pregnancies (77 828 individuals), screening increased substantially over time, but increases differed across language groups (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.